/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18484166]

What should I expect going into this? (I have a very limited knowledge on Hinduism)

[Anonymous No.18484197]

>>18484166
well from my reading of hindus and such writings its obvious they will worship anything, including their own idealized consciousness and even cows, before worshiping the living God who created them

[Anonymous No.18484201]

>>18484197
Is it still worth the read, will I gain decent incite that I can apply to my life? (I'm not looking to be converted into Hinduism)

[Anonymous No.18484205]

>>18484197
At least they ain't worshipping an arab who got fucked by goblin nose jews

[Anonymous No.18484211]

>>18484201
if you have a good understanding of your own religion and beliefs then it's fine to read such things, if you are still seeking and unsure I would hold on, go read the Bible first

[Anonymous No.18484222]

>>18484166
Yeah it's worth the read, it contains what 'spiritual enlightenment' is, as well as some practical stuff in how to orient your life.

[Anonymous No.18484223]

>>18484211
Well I was raised Christian and have read a decent chunk of the Bible (still need to read the full thing) I might return to the church once I've sorted myself out, I'm just reading books that I have on my shelf and I happen to have the Bhagavad Gita

[Anonymous No.18484247]

>>18484166
I've heard this is a somewhat "monotheistic" version of the Gita, is that true? How bad is it? Others seem to like this edition.

[Anonymous No.18484308]

>>18484247
Maybe I should read a less biased version,

[Anonymous No.18485703]

>>18484166
You'll be fine. It's very poetic, but explains it's concepts really simply, with plenty of repetition of examples. It's like the Bible- even if you don't agree with it, you can still appreciate the beautiful imagery.

[Anonymous No.18485859]

>>18484308
Yes, Nikhilananda's translation is better

Easwaran's has a simplified version but its not bad desu, you can read a more complex/advanced one later on

[Anonymous No.18485863]

>>18484166
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJ60M6fnPSU&t=209s

[Anonymous No.18485884]

>>18484211
>Don't read made up stuff A, read made up stuff B

[Anonymous No.18485893]

>>18484197
/thread

[Anonymous No.18486307]

>>18484197
>NOO WHAT DO YOU MEAN THERE'S 5.000+ RELIGIONS ON THE WORLD? MY PARENTS INDOCTRINATED ME ON THIS SPECIFIC ONE!! YOU CAN'T READ ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE!!

[Anonymous No.18486351]

>>18486307
he said he did read another religion.

[Anonymous No.18486966]

>>18484197
>an anime poster as well
of course

[Anonymous No.18486971]

>>18484247
I think its the hare krishna version, so that makes sense

[Anonymous No.18486976]

>>18486966
Yes anime posters are based and anti-annihilationist
Take your cryptonihilism elsewhere, rajesh

[Anonymous No.18486985]

>>18484166
you should expect to become death, the destroyer of worlds

[Anonymous No.18486998]

>>18486985
>krishna: stop being a pussy arjuna and do your duty in battle
>Oppenheimer: waaaaah noooooo people died because my actions in a war
dont know what version he was reading

[Anonymous No.18487022]

Every single one of these translations are extremely biased towards whatever school of Hinduism the person wrote it is from. I'm pretty sure ISKCON worship Krishna similar to Christ. Just get a plain translation with no commentary, like Winthrop Sargent's
>>18486998
woah I only now just realised that hypocrisy

[Anonymous No.18487371]

>>18487022
>Every single one of these translations are extremely biased towards whatever school of Hinduism the person wrote it is from
Not necessarily, the notes may be, but Hindus from other schools don't tend to fudge the words to the extent that Prabhupada does.

Nikhilananda is an Advaitin, but his translation doesn't inaccurately render any of the sentences

[Anonymous No.18488778]

>>18487371
How does he inaccurately translate the sentences?

[Anonymous No.18489789]

>>18484166
post-vedic henotheism that tells you to not lust for result but do your duty (which extends to every action in your life) for thr duty itself (like the phrase 'art for art's sake)

[Anonymous No.18490232]

>>18486998
He actually read it in Sanskrit and "I am become death, destroyer of worlds" was his own translation (and a bad one at that)
Also yeah, it seems like a huge misreading but maybe it was his way of (unsuccessfully) consoling himself by relating himself to Arjuna.

[Anonymous No.18490261]

I've never understood why Hindu's are so obsessed with this
Isn't the worshipping of Krishna only a relatively new form of Hinduism? Or if he's seen as the avatar of Vishnu, something Vaishnavites care about?
Or do all Hindu's just read it and don't care about this detail?
I've been told by a Hindu that the Bhagavad Gita is the bible to her so it's kind of hard to integrate that with what I know about Hinduism.
Will a Shaivist see it as being equivalent to the bible? Will a Shaktist?

[Anonymous No.18491244]

>>18484166
Prabhupada's commentary sometimes works logic in the wrong direction, I forget what it's called.

[Anonymous No.18491711]

>>18490232
>He actually read it in Sanskrit and "I am become death, destroyer of worlds" was his own translation (and a bad one at that)
>Also yeah, it seems like a huge misreading but maybe it was his way of (unsuccessfully) consoling himself by relating himself to Arjuna.
Pretty based anyway for reading it in the original language.

[Anonymous No.18491717]

>>18487371
Hindus from Colonial India?

[Anonymous No.18491853]

>>18490232
Respectable way of reading it, even if he was not getting everything he could out of it

[Anonymous No.18491871]

>>18484197
fpbp, based, and /thread

[Anonymous No.18492033]

>>18484197

[Anonymous No.18492071]

Where do I start with Buddhism? Fuck pajeets btw

[Anonymous No.18492084]

>>18492033
someone wasted a lot of time seething to make that jpg

>>18492071
start with Christ the Eternal Tao, then become Christian

[Anonymous No.18492105]

>>18492084
your religion will never be relevant again outside of africans crucifying animals

[Anonymous No.18492108]

>>18492071
buddha in his own words has been shilled to me but I haven't started it yet

[Anonymous No.18492115]

>>18492071
I read this and found it very straightforward.

[Anonymous No.18492122]

>>18492071
What the Buddha Taught, then the Heart Sutra.

[Anonymous No.18492140]

>>18492105
"Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few." Matthew 7:13-14

[Anonymous No.18492498]

>>18487022
>Winthrop Sargent's
Don't get that one. From a review:

>The explanations and translations of the words would have been useful for beginners if done carefully and correctly. However, a random test shows that W.S. is not at all equipped for the task he has undertaken. In many cases the difference between nominative and accusative seems to have escaped him. For instance, ekaṁ is declared to be an accusative in 5.1cd .... Ekaṁ is said to be a nominative in 5.4c ... Likewise cakṣus in 5.27ab ... and bījaṁ in 7.10ab ... Nimittamātraṁ in 11.33d is said to be an accusative. ... Also the compounds give him great problems. For instance, in 6.15cd nirvāṇaparamāṁ is explained as a compound meaning 'nirvāṇa supreme'
>In his preface W.S. remarks that he has consulted numerous previous translations. He mentions those of Franklin Edgerton, S. Radhakrishnan, Eliot Deutsch, Swami Prabhavananda and Christopher Isherwood, and Swami Chidbhavananda, Juan Mascaro and P. Lal, a rather mixed bag to say the least. Nevertheless the number of mistranslations is still considerable. ...
>W.S. is also not very successful in giving good English translations. For instance, in 5.13b vaśī is not a 'ruler' but one 'in full control' (Zaehner's translation) or 'in control' (Edgerton's translation). In 6.29d ... sarvatra is 'in everything' (Zaehner's translation) and not 'at all times'. In 5.24b ... tathā does not mean 'as a consequence' but 'likewise'.
>It would not have been necessary to point out a few of the many imperfections of this work if the author had not made such ambitious claims for it. In the preface he writes: "As a Sanskrit scholar I am largely self taught, but am certainly competent for the task in hand. Moreover, the present translation has been read and approved by the highest authority." W.S. does not explain who is the highest authority, but he states his indebtedness to J.A.B. van Buitenen for reading the manuscript and making innumerable small (sic) corrections and many suggestions. ... Alas, van Buitenen is no more and one feels rather ill at ease in seeing his name being used to guarantee the excellence of this work. If van Buitenen did indeed read the manuscript from beginning to end, one can only regret the fact that he did not make many more corrections, big or small.